The Pumpkinification of Volker

Disclaimer: Unless you are Volker, or intersted in witnessing a game of Dozens, there is no need for you to read this thread. Nothin' 'but trash talk from here on in. I'm fed up with this ass. Reasonable discusion on the subject continues in the old thread.

"Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer_at_ieee.org> wrote in message news:<c8lk9o$9tj$1_at_nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>...

> You implied that I didn't run the contract by our law department.

Volker, while it is very honerable of your employers give you a job, participating in government projects to aid the mentaly handicapped is commendable indeed, there is no way they would let you make contract choices, so you have no need to run them by the law department. Your job is confined to screwing up obscure code and posting drivel to usenet, as your nurse explained, please review your employment agreement.  

> > Did you imagine, that although I was not responding to
> > you, somehow It was you I was talking about? As usual, you make no
> > sence.

> You did talk to me. Read up your article

Umm, what that sentenece means is that my original suggestions where not directed at you, nor your employers, specificaly, rather they where general advice.

Of couse I did talk to you, however only in response to your nonsence, I haven't yet initatied any discusion with you, although I may still, since you are such an interesting study in cluelessness, mostly because of your verbosity and desperation to find reasons to talk about yourself and the unskilled labour you perform.

> > 'Try it sometime' -- Another attempt to portray yourself as having
> > greater experience, another fallacy.

> So, what's your experience?

As I have said many times, I will let my arguments stand on their own, rather then attempting a //fallacious// "appeal to authority" as you continuously try.

However, I will grant you, in some cases, great experience is to be deferred to. For example: no would would question your expertise in the field of licking urinals clean, as everyone knows you where schooled by your mother, the world's leading authority.

> > No, closed source licence agreements are so devised.

> If I buy oracle (or purify) or whatever, I buy a fixed price for the
> product *once* and the maintenance annually. There is no
> sucking dry part.

The term 'sucking dry' may confuse you, since it reminds of the fantasies you have about feeding Ruffies to Larry Ellison at Oracle World and sucking him dry, so perhaps you should ask a smarter colleage what is meant by the economist's concept of "prices rise to what the market will bear" and then have a little talk about price ceilings in a protectionistic/monopolistic environment and David Ricardo's concept of "Economic rent" and you might understand the technical model for 'sucking dry'. Which, unfortunatly, will likely get you fantasising about Larry again, rather than thinking about price theory, but what the heck, give it a try.

> > You pay for labour, yes, why would this not be obvious?

> I'm trying to make it obvious to you that I can pay for the labour perfectly
> fine without having the right to the source code. It's what those
> perfectly fine maintenance contracts are for.

Yes, just like under the dictorship of the proletariat, you have the right to vote, as long as you vote for The Party. What happened to your communist scholarship? Oh, right, I remember, your references to Mao where out of context too.

Do you get together with your bretheren and sing Oracle partisan songs, declaring the greatness of your fearless leader?

> Ok, somehow you seem to think 4 (ok, at most 5) weeks migration

Interesting, 4 (or maybe 5) weeks pulled directly out of your ass. Is this some sort on universal law? The law of the 4 (or 5) week migration? Perhaps we should call this the Volker Principle. Of course competent project managers would laugh themselves silly. The joke is probably lost on you though.

> > It also means you never have to stop using the product simply because
> > the vendor wants to sell you a new one if the product continues to
> > meet your needs, since with source, you can recompile for for a new
> > cpu, a new os, or when new security updates are available for the
> > libraries it depends on.

> And where are the security updates for the obsolete database?

_library_ updates dumbass, for instance your ssl library.

> Where are the customers that want to buy a piece of legacy code?

Please figure out the difference between _stop_using_ and _start_using_ and read the quoted statement again.

> > You still have the source code.

> Yes, I can print it out and kill some trees with it.

To each his own, normaly one would compile it. But then normaly a keyboard is for typing, for you it's mostly for drooling on.

> > Yet the vendor gaurantees nothing.
> He guarantees to put labour to my service requests.

As long as it is profitable for them.

> Btw, what does mysql guarantee if you take out a service contract
> with them?

They guarantee that they can never hold you hostage to their services, because you have the source code.

> > The database vendor obviously
> > balances maintenance costs and development costs, trying to minimize both.

> > The vendor only tries to maximize profits.

> Yes, and where is the contradiction?

Closed source is a barrier to price elasticity, cost push analysis therefore no longer aplies, rather Ricardo's "Economic Rent" is the correct analytical tool, meaning that, in the long run, they will extract from you no less than the total cost of migration away from Oracle to a new platform**. A dumbass like you may know nothing about economics, but I assure you: Oracle executives do.

(** Aside: In this way it may be said that free software is a benifit even to idiots like Volker, since it lowers the theoretical economic rent, however ignorance of this option among his kind allows Oracle and co to mostly ignore this for now)

> > You do not need to, just like if you design a curcuit with a
> > proprietary conector or a standard one, the former is expensive and
> > only comes from one comany, the later is cheap and comes from many.
> > Unless you really need the former, you would always chose the later.
> > In neither case are you required to manufacture connectors.

> Just checking... All the databases we are talking support sql, or at least
> a reasonable subset of it right? So, by using sql I'm only tying those
> parts to the particular db that are special and which I use, right?

Using standard SQL is not a bad start, when possible.

However, issolating your access ruotines to as few places in your code as possible (wrapper functions) instead of littering proprietry bindings throughout your code can be a damn good idea too.

> So, the only "own investment" is tied to those features because I need them,
> right?

No, not just because you 'need' them, but because you 'benifit' from them, with your data access code abstracted, you can also introduce other features when desired, because your access code is //isolated//, and have your entire application benifit.

> This might sound unusual for you, but if you use a great library, and
> suddenly it has a bug and there's no maintenance, the app is bust.

With a closed source library yes, with an open source one, you have options.

> Now, what are the cases
> here:
> - I'm poor. So, neither could I pay for the fix, nor for the company. My
> product depends on someone richer to pick up the pieces. (the code
> or the rights to the code)

Then you are most likely using a popular product, and can download the patched source for free, since somebody else may likely have the same problem.

> - I'm rich. So, either could I agree to pay more maintenance and keep
> the vendor alive, or pay a few percent less (by cutting out the management
> level of the vendor) and hire the developers to go on.

The later, only if you have the source.

> - I'm a programming genius. then why did I use a library in the first case?

Because it was usefull? Why would a programming genius not use a usefull library to wich he has source? Do you imagine programming genius insist on reinventing every wheel just because they can? Such a developer may be clever, but certainly no genius.

> > > Well, looks like the only credible supporter of mysql is mysql ab.
> >
> > There are as many as the market will bear, since there is no
> > artificial thing, like closed source, keeping competition away.

> Closed source is nothing artificial either, it's the only way to
> go before you have payed the original developers.

Closed source is a barrier to competition, therefore market forces are disturbed. I don't know what the second clause in your statement means, and I suspect, neither do you.

> > > And right now it works because they all more or less follow redhat.
> >
> > What? Who follows Red Hat?

> The Linux distributors.

Really? You mean like Debian, GenToo, Arch-Linux and Slackware? In what what do these Follow Red Hat? And other than using RPM, in what way dows SuSE 'follow Red Hat?' Or Conectiva, or Mandrake, or Lindows? What the hell are you talking about? You are talking out of your ass as usual.

> As an example of a big open source project.
> And that postgres windows company does the same, right (following
> the main postgres company)?

There is no *MAIN* posgres company, as I said, PostgreSQL Inc, is not to be confused with PostgreSQL Org, it is but one, of many, contributers to the project.

> Btw, spelled out: I *CAN'T* hire "many companies, large and small"
> to support my open source product. For most, none exist, for some,
> one exists, tying me down, for very few, some companies support
> ports, some simply cash in.

Just because you are an ignorant ass does not mean that none exist, many exist, why would they not exist? if the open source software in question is popular, like Postgres and MySQL, then please explain what market forces you imagine will pervent firms from tapping this market?

> > posting, and as still unrefuted in anyway by you copious blather.

> Oh, I did refute it, you just ignored it. And asked me to help you forget
> by quoting shorter, right?

Not only are you too ignorant to know that trimming your posts is simply good usenet style, but apparently, you think that responding is the same as refuting. In order to 'refute' an argument, you actualy need to make a logical argument, not merely a fallacious claim.

Here is mine, as syllogisms:

If changing an application is needed, and if changing an application requires source, then source is needed.

If a production system is dependent on a change in source, and if a third party has sole possessionion the source, then the production system is dependent on the third party.

If a production system is dependent on a change in source, and if the source is available to many parties, then the production system is not dependent on any one party.

Please educate yourself on the rules of logic before responding with more fallacious bunk.

> > > And it definitely doesn't make my boss keep a bunch of abandoned code
> > > that we are the sole users of.
> >
> > First, if the system is widely used the code would not be abandoned,

> Ditto for a commercial product.

No, the commercial product is not subject to normal market forces because of the closed source.  

> > second, a closed source product is not less likely to be abandoned
> > that an open source one,

> It is. Because someone invested real money in it.

All products and services are invested in, productive capacity, like machines and factories and software, are products of //investment//.

Without investment, there is no software of anykind, closed or open source.

> > third if it is abandoned then you are in
> > better shape if you do have the code.

> Sigh... We've been through this. In what way am I in better shape then?

You have source, your application can be supported.

> It doesn't make sense to wait for your mysterious entrepeneurs (who, in
> any case could also bid for the property of the bust company)

There is nothing mysterious about these entrepeneurs, and there is a big difference in regards to the entrepeneurs competeing in ONE MARKET ENCOUNTER for the rights to the property of the bust company, as aposed to competing with each other AT EVERY MARKET ENCOUNTER for all opportinuties to provide their services to the user community of the product.

> > secondly, without
> > source, how you will compile it for your new CPU, or new OS, or to
> > link a security-updated library?

> Even with the source, if I were to compile mysql to, let's pick
> a platform at random, my new cellphone, I'd have to do a bit
> more than ./configure&&make install, right?

Good luck runnig Oracle on your cellphone dumbass, when I decide to replace one of my production database servers with a cellphone, I'll get back to you.

> > Funny, that's exactly what I said, many times in this thread.

> Where? (I mean, before I pushed your nose in it?)

Everywhere, I have never stated that my suggestions do not have exceptions, not once, and always included qualifiers such as 'Ideally', 'When Possible', etc..

As for 'pushing my nose in it', obviously you are so stupid that you have mistaken your idiotic pretensions for reality, You have not, nor are you capable of, rubbing anyone's nose in anything. However your nose has been rubbed in your ridiculous shit so many times that you're starting to look like Thomas D. Rice getting ready for a show.

> > The 'case for code rights' does not disapear,

> So, what are code rights good for if not for not having to change
> the database?

For recompiling the database, obviously, there are numerous reasons you may want to do this.

> > but by abstarction,
> > becomes less important, since abstarction is another layer of
> > protection.

> So my code gets clumsy and slow for no reason at all.

If you are a bad coder, your code gets clumsy, issolating your code can also make your overall aplication less clumsy, and even at times perform better.

> > > Are you trying to change thread from opensource to abstraction?

> > I am not trying to change 'the thread' -- I posted my recomendations,

> See the subject line.

The subject line is inherented from the previous poster, who asked a question about chosing between database platforms, my suggestions where intended to explain that there are other considerations besides a direct feature comparison between database that should be considered, you responding to my suggestions, therefore our thread is about my suggestions. It's amazing I have to explain this to you. But in anycase, to make this all a little easier for you, I have now changed the subject line. Hope this helps.

> > > > However if your application is tied to one database, then the very
> > > > client you are describing is the very client that you will not get if
> > > > they use a different database from yours.
>
> > > We do have such an app here. The result is that it doesn't run well
> > > on *any* database.
> >
> > As I said, there are bad applications, both abstracted and
> > unabstracted ones, your argument, is, as usual, a fallacy.

> In what way?

Your proposition as a syllogism:

This particilar application is abstracted, this particular application is bad,
therefore all aplications that are abstracted are bad.

This syllogism is fallacious: a 'Hasty generalization.'

> > And, if your forced your customer into Larry's arms, they will blame
> > you, not Larry.

> Yes, and if oracle isn't willing to fix it I can give oracle a lot more
> trouble than mysql because their contracts are more expensive.

Please express logicaly the relationship between the expensiveness ot the contracts and the amount of trouble you can cause Oracle.

I'm sure that your sexual obsession with Larry Ellison do cause a lot of trouble to the poor support personel who have to deal with your heavy breathing.

> > (I wonder if you even know what a fallacy is, you use so so many of
> > them)

> Whatever your secret work experience may be your public english
> experience isn't good enough to teach me that language.

My work experience is hardly a secret, or even hard to find out, it is just /irrelevent//, and arguments based on authority are fallacies. But out of all your idiotic comments this is my favourite!

You think that by suggesting that you do not know what a fallacy is I am questioning your grasp of _english_ when any one who *does* know what a fallacy is would understand that I am questioning your grasp of _logic_.

Your english, Volker, is quite good, only proving that one can be a complete moron while speaking perfect english.

> > For the millionth time, please try to
> > follow.

> Cut out this stuff. It makes you sound ridiculous.

No, encouraging you to follow makes me sound humane, like a kindly dog trainer with an unusualy stupid mutt on his hands, what makes me sound ridiculous, is that I bother to continue talking to you at all, my only hope is that the others will ignore this thread of ours and it can be my guilty secret.

> Abstraction is irrelevant to open source because the big thing is the right
> to the source code, correct?

No, the 'big thing' is my application, both abstarction and open source are assets to it. Even closed source can be an asset to it if it helps do what I want and my customers need it, abstraction in this case is even more preferable.

> > Yeah, a 'diversion' I cleverly included in my very first post in this
> > thread.

> What's the difference? You didn't start the thread.

Yes I did. You responded to my recomendations, thus a new discussion was started between you and me, regarding my recomondations, which become the topic of the new thread. You place to much value in the subject header, however, to make this clear to you, I have changed the subject. Please keep your posts relevent to the new topic, your Apocolocyntosis.

> > What kind of idiot are you?

> How old are you?

Intersting that you draw a relationship between my age and my ability to identify you as an idiot.

Here are the standard stages:

    One Month of Age

• Could focus on an object moving in pendular fashion 6 inches directly above his/her face. Respond to a bell by crying, becoming quiet, or other reflex.

    Two Months of Age

• May smile for no apparent reason. Grasp hands together. Squeal with glee.

    Three Months of Age

• Could laugh out loud. Squeal in delight. Follow object six inches over face for 180 degrees back and forth.

    Four Months of Age

• Should, by end of month, be able to identify Volker as an idiot, and laugh and point.

See Volker, as you could have concluded, I am at least four months old.

Regards,
Dmytri. Received on Mon May 24 2004 - 10:51:30 CDT